Friday, August 17, 2012

So can you believe that crap? I'm referring to the Obama campaign's physical attack on veterans (read the snapshot below my post, C.I.'s already covered it with links this is just my thoughts on the attack).

So a group of activists decide to stand up for Bradley Manning and the Barack Obama response is to attack them. To push veterans to the ground, to shove them, to scream at them, to threaten them with raised chairs.

That's presidential behavior?

It's thuggery plain and simple.

When that happens, you really have to examine the campaign.

In this case, you have a bunch of attacks coming from Barack encouraging attacks at the local level. He's destroying the country. He truly is. A second term will provide one thing and only one thing, if you ask me, over half the country united in their opposition to and distaste for Barack.

He has truly brought it on himself.

What kind of Chicago thug operation is he running?

The campagin should have apologized immediately for what happened in Oakland. How dare any presidential campaign treat peaceful protesters like that.

But that's the thuggery always right beneath the cult of personality. Always directly beneath. That's why so many of us were scared (rightly) when Bully Boy Bush was illegally occupying the White House. And it's why we felt uneasy over the mass adulation of Obomber. The killer. The drone president.

And now we see what comes from that. This is the man who tried to make hay out of poor Gabbie Giffords' shooting. And now when it his campaign office attacking people, he stays silent.

Friday,
August 17, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Barack's Oakland
campaign includes staff that attacked veterans yesterday, Iraqis bury
their dead after the second most violent day of the year yesterday, the
stalemate continues in Iraq, the suicide epidemic continues in the US
military, Adam Kokesh and Bruce Dixon fact check Barack on Iraq, Jill
Stein talks about writing off all student loan debt in the US, and more.

Yesterday in Oakland some veterans were
attacked in public. The attack took place at Barack Obama's Oakland
campaign office and it was Barack's staff that attacked the veterans.
One female volunteer had the intelligence to see how badly attacking
anyone -- let alone veterans -- looked and she demanded that all
campaign workers follow her to the back. Prior to that, some staff (I'm
sure that's paid staff and volunteers) did attack veterans, pushed
them, shoved them, attempted to grab their camera and who knows what
else. And they scream and yell, "Get out of here! Get out of here!"
It was an ugly look at what happens when reality walks in the door and
the devoted can't take it so they attack. Everyone but the woman who
called everyone to the back should be removed from the campaign. That
behavior was outragous. The campaign should issue an apology for the
assault on veterans. You can see the tape US News & World Reports has posted.
It's not pretty. When the police use tactics like that, we are
appalled. There is no excuse for campaign staff (paid or volunteer) to
behave that way.

Those inside the office included Iraq Veterans Against the War's
Joshua Shephard and Scott Olsen -- both of whom were also participants
of Occupy Oakland. Scott, is of course, the veteran whose encounter with
Oakland police resulted in a fractured skull (among other injuries) and
the world was outraged. If the camera hadn't been there yesterday, how
far would it have gone? Supposedly chairs were also wielded against
the veterans? That's not in the video (the camera operator is knocked
to the floor at one point and who knows what happened during that
period). When Olson was attacked in 2011, it prompted a review by the
Oakland police into their policies. Something similar needs to happen
to Barack's Oakland office and Barack needs to issue a public apology to
veterans. (Will he? I doubt it. He's always the first to scream at
others for a supposed insult but the last to offer an apology. That
was the pattern as candidate in 2007 and 2008 and it's remained the
pattern -- as we saw most recently with regards to Poland.)

Veterans
are not props. Politicians love to use veterans to shore up their own
shoddy credentials. Those who have been happy to utilize (use) them for
their campaigns should have the maturity to apologize publicly when an
incident like what took place in Oakland goes down.

Joshua
Shepherd: We're calling for a full pardon of Bradley Manning as well as
an apology for Obama's statement that declared Bradley Manning was
guilty before he faced any judicial proceedings. You know the military
judicial system is not quite as fair as the civilian but it is, you know
there are certain measures and a minimum level of justice and due
process that is required. And the Obama administration has presided
over this obliteration of that system and much to Bradley's deteriment.

Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported
in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of
violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his
personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized
software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight
counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified
information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported
that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges
including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could
result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took
place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32
hearing and, February 3, 2012, it was announced that the government
would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a
plea and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it. His
court-martial was to take place next month but has been pushed back to
February.

Outside
the headquarters a woman explained, "American troops are being killed
all over Asia and the Middle East. American troops suicide rate is
higher right now than combat deaths. There's a reason for that."

Yesterday the Pentagon announced, "The
Army released suicide data today for the month of July. During July,
among active-duty soldiers, there were 26 potential suicides: one has
been confirmed as suicide and 25 remain under investigation. For June,
the Army reported 11 potential suicides among active-duty soldiers;
since the release of that report, one case has been added for a total of
12 cases: two have been confirmed as suicides and 10 remain under
investigation. For 2012, there have been 116 potential active-duty
suicides: 66 have been confirmed as suicides and 50 remain under
investigation. Active-duty suicide number for 2011: 165 confirmed as
suicides and no cases under investigation.During
July, among reserve component soldiers who were not on active duty,
there were 12 potential suicides (nine Army National Guard and three
Army Reserve): one has been confirmed as suicide and 11 remain under
investigation. For June, among that same group, the Army reported 12
potential suicides (nine Army National Guard and three Army Reserve):
seven have been confirmed as suicides and five remain under
investigation. The Army previously reported 10 Army National Guard and
two Army Reserve cases for June."

Leon Panetta is the Secretary of Defense. July 25th, he appeared before the House Veterans Affairs Committee. From that day's snapshot:

US
House Rep Mike Michaud: Quick question, and I want to read from a
Veterans Service Organization letter that they actually sent to Senator
[Jim] Webb just last week. And just part of it says, "The only branch
of the military to show a marked improvement decreasing the number of
persons taking their own life is the United States Marines. They should
also be praised for their active leadership from the very top in
addressing the problem and implementing the solutions. The remaining
services have yet to be motivated to take any substanative action. "
Secretary Panetta, I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan several times and
I've looked the generals in the eye and I've asked them what are they
doing personally to help the stigmatized TBI, PTSD? And the second
question is: Do they need any help? I get the same answer over there as
I do over here in DC: 'Everything's okay. We've got all the
resources we need. We don't need any help.' But the interesting thing
is someone much lesser ranked came up to me, after I asked the general
that question, outside and said, "We need a lot more help." And he
suggested that I talk to the clergy to find out what they are seeing
happening. And I did that trip and every trip since then. And I'm
finding that our service members are not getting the help that they
need. And my question, particularly after looking at this letter that
was sent to Senator Webb, it appears the Marines are doing a good job so
why is it so different between the Marines, the Army and other
branches? And can you address that?

Secretary
Leon Panetta: You know -- Obviously, there's no silver bullet here. I
wish there were to try to deal with suicide prevention. We-we have a
new suicide prevention office that's trying to look at programs to try
to address this terrible epedemic. I mean, we are looking. If you look
at just the numbers, recent total are you've got about 104 confirmed
and 102 pending investigation in 2012. The total of this is high,
almost 206. That's nearly one a day. That is an epedemic. Something
is wrong. Part of this is people are inhibited because they don't want
to get the care that they probably need. So that's part of the problem,
trying to get the help that's necessary. Two, to give them access to
the kind of care that they need. But three -- and, again, I stress this
because I see this in a number of other areas, dealing with good
discipline and good order and, uh, trying to make sure that our troops
are responding to the challenges -- it is the leadership in the field.
It's the platoon commander. It's the platoon sergeant. It's the
company commander. It's the company sergeant. The ability to look at
their people, to see these problems. To get ahead of it and to be able
to ensure that when you spot the problems, you're moving that individual
to the kind of-of assistance that they need in order to prevent it.
The Marines stay in close touch with their people. That's probably one
of the reasons that the Marines are doing a good job. But what we're
stressing in the other services is to try to develop that-that training
of the command. So that they two are able to respond to these kinds of
challenges.

US House Rep Mac Thornberry also raised the issue of suicides, noting Time magazine's
recent cover story (July 23rd issue), Mark Thompson &; Nancy Gibbs'
"One A Day: Every day, one U.S. soldier commits suicide. Why the
military can't defeat its most insidious enemy." He raised the issue of
"33% of all military suicides have never deployed overseas at all and
43% had deployed once." Panetta confirmed that statistic from the
article was accurate. Panetta argued that suicide is on the rise "in
the larger society" and that this is reflected within the military.

Today Rebecca Ruiz (NBC News) emphasizes
this point on the latest suspected suicides, "Bruce Shahbaz, a medical
analyst on the Army's Suicide Prevention Task Force, told Time
that experts did notice the deaths of non-commissioned officers
outnumbered those of junior enlisted members for the first time since
2001." Mark Thompson (Time magazine) adds,
"The Army has been fighting suicides when they were occurring at the
rate of nearly one a day -- in fact, that was the cover line on a Time story
last month into the vexing problem of soldiers killing themselves after
a decade of war. But July's 38 likely suicides spread over the month's
31 days works out to almost 1.25 suicides a day." For service members
in need, there is Military One Source which does include a crisis hotline 1-800-273-TALK (1-800-273-8255). There is also online counseling.

But Military One Source doesn't always work for service members as yesterday's report by David Martin (CBS Evening News) noted
utilizing a talk Rebecca Morrsion gave in June at the annual DoD and VA
suicide conference in which she spoke of her husband Capt Ian Morrison
taking his own life, how he went to two different clinics but received
no help and how he then dialed Military One Source, "He was on hold with
Military One Source for over an hour before he hung up." Greg Jaffe (Washington Post) quotes
mental health social worker and the wife of a Marine who took his own
life seven years ago Kim Ruocco stating, "The military really is
trying hard. But we need more money, more resources, and we need to
make mental health care a higher priority. There are still too many
gaps in care and too long of waits for soldiers seeking care."

Justin Moyer (Washington Post) reports
on a University of Utah study entitled "Reasons for Suicide Attempts in
a Clinical Sample of Active Duty Soldiers." The paper argues,
"Explicit skills training in alternative behaviors that serve an emotion
regulation function (e.g. mindfulness, relaxation, cognitive
restructuring) could replace the use of suicidal behaviors for this same
purpose." Katie Drummond (Forbes) notes,
" Analysts suspect that as troops draw-down from combat zones overseas,
more veteran soldiers -- many of whom have been deploying consistently
since the dawn of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- are struggling
to reintegrate into civilian life."

Jamie Crawford (CNN) quotes
the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen Lloyd Austin, "Suicide is the
toughest enemy I have faced in my 37 years in the Army. And it's an
enemy that's killing not just Soldiers, but tens of thousands of
Americans every year. That said, I do believe suicide is preventable.
To combat it effectively will require sophisticated solutions aimed at
helping individuals to build resiliency and strengthen their life coping
skills."

In Iraq, Adam Schreck (AP) notes,
families were burying yesterday's victims: "Dozens of people carried
the coffins of relatives through the streets of the neighborhood
Friday. Some mourners wept, while others sought solace by chanting 'God
is Great'." Yesterday, Iraq was slammed with a wave of violence. Today the numbers are still rising. AP earlier reported 59 died from yesterday's bombings and shootings. But Iraqi officials later claimed the death toll was 93. Thursday was the second largest death toll day since Decembr. Al Mada notes the wave of violence and that the dead included at least one child (Kirkuk home bombing). Alsumaria reports
that a Nineveh Province citizen's council is blaming the Ministry of
Health for the death of many wounded. Why? They state that the
Ministry has inadequately funded the hospitals leading to a lack of
doctors and ambulances which resulted in a number of wounded whom they
feel should have survived the attacks instead ending up among the dead.
The Minister of Health is Dr. Majeed Jamil. Alsumaria also notes that others, including a member of the Parliament's Security and Defense Committee, are calling out the security plan. France's Foreign Ministry issued the following statement today:

France
condemns in the strongest possible terms the attacks carried out on
Thursday throughout the country, which took the lives of more than 50
people and injured more than 200.

It offers
its condolences to the Iraqi people and the families of the victims,
and expresses its solidarity with the Iraqi authorities in their fight
against terrorism

France stands by Iraq's
side and reaffirms its full support for the Iraqi government, which is
engaged in an effort to promote recovery, stability and security. It has
decided at the highest level to support Iraq in its stabilization and
reconstruction process. This commitment, which we are determined to
fulfill, has translated notably into programs to provide training in
law, security and governance. It represents one of our priorities in our
cooperation with Iraq. We are ready to study any additional requests by
the Iraqi authorities in this area.

I
am appalled at the wave of heinous attacks that shook the country
throughout the day yesterday," said Mr. Kobler, who extended his
condolences to the families of those killed and wished a speedy recover
for the wounded.

Noting that the attacks
coincided with the onset of Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim holiday marking the
end of Ramadan, Mr. Kobler also condemned the violence for disrupting
the spirit of peace associated with one of the holiest days in the
Muslim calendar.

The political crisis continues in Iraq and the 'Reform Commission' -- now just a list -- becomes more laughable each day. The Sadr bloc notes that a piece of paper is not going to solve the ongoing crisis. Al Mada reports
that State of Law is stating that they did not bother to address the
issue of the three presidencies. That's Speaker of Parliament,
President of Iraq and Prime Minister. It's not a minor issue. It's one
State of Law has hissed at publicly when others raised it -- Moqtada
al-Sadr, Ayad Allawi and Massoud Barzani among others have raised.
Nouri has had two terms and, in Februrary 2011, announced he would not
seek a third term when rulers in the region were being forced out of
office. He quickly took back that promise and his attorney has told the
press repeatedly that Nouri can seek a third term. If Nouri doesn't
try for a third term, State of Law loses the office because they have no
other name leader -- they're a motley band of has-beens and strugglers
who've made no real impact on the political scene. And they know
Moqtada al-Sadr wants to be prime minister as does the Islamic Supreme
Council of Iraq's Ammar al-Hakim and Adil Abdul-Mahdi and Ibrahaim
al-Jaafari (for al-Jaafari, it would be a second term as prime minister)
so if Nouri can't have a third term, short of poaching from a rival
political slate, State of Law stands a good chance of petering out.

All Iraq News notes
that Arshad Salhi, head of the Turkmen Front, has stated that the three
presidencies, the Cabinet ministers and the MPs should all hold a
meeting to address the situation in Iraq and that the meeting should
continue until all can reach a shared solution on what needs to be done.
Al Mada notes
that ISCI states meetings will be held following Eid al-Fitr. Still
hiding out in Germany, Jalal Talabani issued a statement hailing the
'progress' on the political crisis, Alsumaria notes.

As All Iraq News notes,
there continues to be disagreement about the composition of the
Electoral Commission. This was supposed to have been decided long, long
ago. And a law passed. Elections are supposed to take place in March
of next year (provincial elections). The Parliament recently extended
the 'current' commission by 35 days while they continue working on the
new law. ('Current' written that way because before they were extended,
their terms really had ended.) The National Alliance's Qassim al-Araji
states that the commission should be expanded (increase the number of
members) and he criticized those who are opposing this move.

This
is an outright lie, as more than a hundred thousand US – financed
mercenaries remain in Iraq indefinitely, and the Obama White House
fought till the last minute to get its Iraqi client state to set aside
the Status of Forces agreement negotiated under the Bush administration
which required all official US forces to leave the country.

Adam
Kokesh: "Number Two. He ended the war in Iraq and is drawing the war
in Afghanistan to a close. Like he said he would." Holy f**king s**t,
this is pathetic. If you're anti-war, if you understand that war is just
a f**king embarrassment -- and I do because I'm a veteran, I was in
Falluja in 2004, I get it. Yeah, war is a racket, just like Major
General Smedley Butler said, always has been, always will be. So
here's the thing. You're going to support a guy who's 'ending the war
in Iraq' was actually attempting to keep it going longer than we would
have had it end under the Bush plan? Now when he [Barack] took office,
there was the Bush plan [SOFA] in place and he [Barack] promised to end
the war immediately but instead did everything in his power to extend
the Bush plan. And as it was, what we got with Obama, in terms of Iraq
policy was exactly what we would have had under Bush except it looked
worse and was more two-faced. Yeah. Afghanistan? He's bringing
Afghanistan to a close? Yeah, after a surge. That's like saying to
someone who's-who's robbing your house, "Oh, can you only just clear out
one more room before you stop robbing me?" I mean are you serious? This
is like, this is a feather in Obama's cap that he's bringing the war in
Afghanistan to a close after sending in a surge of 30,000 troops on top
of the 100,000 that were already there? And now keeping the 100,000
that were already there as long as he can possibly get away with?
That's your idea of ending a war? That's like shoving that guy out of
your house who's robbing you and saying, "Thank you for leaving."

While
it isn't her official title, Dr. Jill Stein sure sounds like the first
presidential candidate of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Stein,
technically the Green Party nominee, is running a longshot but
aggressive campaign against a political system she feels has capitulated
to corporate interests.

She sees no
difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, and she thinks
voters are tired of both of them. So she's calling for a "voter
rebellion."

"We must occupy our elections
just as we must occupy our banks and our schools and everything else,"
Stein said in an interview during a visit to Seattle to speak at
Hempfest, in addition to other events. "Because they belong to us."

Ross
Reynolds: And you're certainly putting forward some proposals that
we're not hearing from the major candidates. Among them, a plan to
forgive current student loan debt. Now I saw that it was 904 billion
dollars in the first quarter of 2012. Are you talking about forgiving
all of that debt? And who's going to pay for it?

Jill
Stein: Yeah. I mean, we are talking about a trillion dollars worth of
student debt. We found a way to forgive much more than that from the
bankers who caused this problem with the waste, fraud and abuse on Wall
Street. We think that the students who are the victims of this waste,
fraud and abuse ought to have equal forgiveness. So there are a variety
of ways to do it. There are some proposals that we do in other
quantative easing but it's time to do it for student debt rather than
motrgate debt. There are a variety of solutions. I can't say that
we're dedicated to any one of them at this point but I think in
principle it's really important that we bail out the students for all
kinds of reasons. Our economy depends upon it. They are endentured
servants basically. In order to move forward, we need to get them out
of debt.

Ross
Reynolds: You've talked about a plan to create 25 million jobs. That's
huge. Where would the money come from to pay for that?

Jill
Stein: In short, the money would come from downsizing the military.
We're spending a trillion dollars a year now in this bloated
military-industrial-security complex. That has been doubled over about
the last ten years. Certainly without doubling our security in many
ways. We are just as insecure as ever -- dropping bombs on funerals and
weddings out of our drones which are proliferating madly. This does
not buy us security. Over a thousand military bases scattered in over
100 countries around the world. Indeed, the trillions that we spent on
Afghanistan and Iraq have not made us more secure, they've not made Iraq
and Afghanistan more secure, they continue to teeter on the brink of
civil war. So much of the money would come from the military, much of
it would come from taxing Wall Street -- a Wall Street transaction tax,
also known as a Robin Hood tax which would be a good in of itself for
discouraging reckless Wall Street speculation. We're also looking at
health care as a human right which actually saves us money. Trillions of
dollars over the coming decade would be saved not only by reducing the
massive health insurance bureaucracy but also by stabilizing medical
inflation.

Elvis Presley is called "the king." The king of rock and roll. Of course rock and roll has been dead for some time. Rock replaced it. (And some would argue rock is dead.)

Elvis got to be the king by shocking (on 50s TV pelvis thrusts, especially from a man, were shocking), by possessing a plush singing voice that so many just wanted to roll around in and by singing a large number of hits.

"Jailhouse Rock" is probably my favorite of all his songs. I'm not big on ballads but if I had to pick, I'd go with "Can't Help Falling In Love With You."

Along with hit records, he branched out into movies. I couldn't tell you the plot to any of them -- okay, Change of Habit I know the plot to (Mary Tyler Moore and two other women are nuns) -- but I know I can still hum along to the theme to /Blue Hawaii. I also know the best co-star he had was Ann-Margaret and that Viva Las Vegas is a strong rock musical.

Elvis wasn't really my generation. Granted, he has his big Las Vegas comeback while I was a teen but that's not exactly Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, is it? The Beatles were the 'kings' of my childhood and teenage years. 'But Elvis left such a mark that he's still known today by just "Elvis." There are other Elivses. Many parents were inspired to name their children after him. And there's Elvis Costello. But to this day, if you say "Elvis," most people will immediately picture Elvis Presley.

And that probably says more about his stardom, talent and staying power than anything else, 35 years after he passed away.

Thursday,
August 16, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, a State of Law MP goes
on TV to blame the Kurds for today's wave of violence, Julian Assange
and Ecuador steal focus, Camp Ashraf, Jill Stein and Roseanne Barr, and
more.

Anthony
Fest: The whistle blower website WikiLeaks released another trove of
confidential documents today. Last month WikiLeaks released thousands of
Pentagon documents most associated with the US occupation of Iraq. In
contrast, the documents made public today include thousands of
diplomatic cables -- communications between the State Dept and
Washington and US consulates all around the world. The documents cover
both the George W. Bush and the Barack Obama administrations. WikiLeaks
gave an advance look at the documents to several media organizations
including the New York Times and the British newspaper the Guardian.
Those publications now have articles on their websites analyzing the
documents. WikiLeaks says it will post the documents on its own website
in the coming days although it has said its site was the target of a
cyber attack today. The documents release is certain to provoke tension
between the US and its allies. For example, some of the cables say that
Saudi donors are the largest financiers of terror groups. Other cables
detail the cover-up of US military activities. One of them records a
meeting last January between US Gen David Petreaus and the president of
Yemen about air attacks against rebels in Yemen. The president, Ali
Abdullah Saleh, tells Petraeus, "We'll continue to say they are our
bombs and not yours." According to the Guardian, the documents reveal
that some Arab leaders had privately urged an air attack against Iran
and that US officials had been instructed to spy on the United Nations'
leadership. Among the other disclosures are deep fears in Washington and
London about the security of Paksitan's nuclear weapons. Another
document asserts massive corruption at high levels of the Afghanistan
government saying the Afghan vice president traveled to the United Arab
Emirates carrying $52 million in cash. Still other documents disparage
the British military in Afghanistan.

In 2010, WikiLeaks was still doing major releases. In fact, that was probably the high water mark for WikiLeaks. Already, Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks had released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Still in 2010, June 7, 2010,
the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he
stood accused of being the leaker of the video. And that was part of
the change. At that point, the head of WikiLeaks and the face of
WikiLeaks to the media and the world, Julian Assange, was stating that
they didn't know who the leaker was (that leaked the material to them).
Ever since, Julian Assange has lived on the defensive.

Today he's in the news cycle because Ecuador is offering him asylum.

If
the last four years have taught those of us on the left anything, it
should have taught us that there is no excuse or justification to whore
for one person, that we either stand up for what we believe in and do so
truthfully or we're liars in the eyes of the whole country.

Ecuador has granted asylum to Julian Assange which is pretty much conditional upon
his getting out of England or else hoping to live in the Ecuador
Embassy in the UK. Michael Ratner wants to assert that Ecuador is
"doing what was legally required here." That is incorrect. That is a
falsehood. As someone who has repeatedly advocated for Canada to grant
asylum to US war resisters, I have never argued that Canada had to do so
or that they were legally required to. Because they weren't. No
country is required to grant someone asylum. That is why cases for
asylum are argued.

There are enough lies out
there with regards to the Julian Assange case. More do not need to be
put out there. It is also dishonest for Michael to assert claims to
legal rights of asylum when stating that the UK needs to back off.
Julian Assange was released on bail. He is in violation of British law
currently.

You can assert that B means we
follow the law while ignore the earlier event (A). But when you assert
that, you look like you are eithter uninformed or dishonest to anyone
who knows the actual details. In addition, you make others look foolish
for believing you. Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) is an intelligent and caring person.
And she believed she could trust that 'trusted voices' were telling the
truth. She has outraged several who have e-mailed this site about her
comments regarding the accusations against Julian Assange in Sweden.
Her pithy claim that they wouldn't even be crimes in the US is
embarrassing. It appears that the Grand Idiot Naomi Wolf has influenced
Wilder's take (either through reading or hearing Wolf or hearing
others repeat Wofl's arguments). Here's a tip for every woman in the
US, when it comes to rape don't trust Naomi. This is the woman who
stayed silent following a gang rape -- excuse me, that's wrong. This is
a woman who stayed silent in terms of going to the authorities but who
laughed with the rapists the night after a gang rape -- laughed about
the victim, laughed about the victim's shoe left behind in the frat
house as she escaped following her gang rape. Why did Naomi laugh? She
didn't want to be called a lesbian.

Nothing
could hurt the cock-driven (cock-starved?) Naomi Wolf more than to be
called a lesbian. Why didn't she call the authorities? On that she's
remained silent. But when a professor apparently made a pass at her in
the midst of a private evening (he denied it, she said it happened), she
wanted the whole world to know about it, over a decade later. (Did it
happen? I have no idea. But after you've mocked a victim of gang rape
with her rapists and then been stupid enough to share that story, don't
expect sympathy from me.) Ava and I have repeatedly warned against that nutcase over the years (in terms of the nutcase and Assange, see "TV: Saboteurs").

The
harm she's done on the Assange case will not go away. That's why you
don't lie. Someone's going to believe you're on 'our side.' When it
comes to rape, however, 'our side' gets a hell of a lot smaller and any
woman capable of self-honesty will admit that. When it comes to the
environment, the left is one big happy family, hugging trees and
replanting forests. When it comes to issues of violence against women,
the left willing to call it out is about a quarter of what it was for
the environment.

Michael at least says "my
view" at one of his most ludicrous moments. But he's an attorney and he
should know better so the "my view" is nonsense. He asserts that
Julian "has a right to leave that embassy, get on a plane and go to
Ecuador. Will the British ever honor that . . ."?

The
British right to arrest him -- he is a fugitive -- trumps the right of
Ecuador. They are on British soil. It is not complicated and Michael
knows that. As does Julian Assange which is why Assange isn't strolling
through London to an airport right now.

The
dishonesty is so disappointing because we don't need more of it on the
left. If you want to make a case for Julian Assange going to Ecuador,
you should be able to do so without resorting to falsehoods. When
Michael Ratner, an intelligent and usually thoughtful person, presents
the sloppy throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-hope-something-sticks faux
legal argument that he has, anyone paying attention is going to wonder:
"If Michael Ratner can't make a plausible legal case, does that mean
that there's not one?"

In fairness to Michael,
he's not speaking as a legal analyst and shouldn't have been presented
as such. He's working for Assange. A real public affairs program that
operated under journalistic standards would have presented him with
another guest who took a different opinion. And the back-and-forth of
such an exchange probably would have greatly sharpened Michael's own
argument.

He makes assertions on aslyum
that are puzzling at best. He asserts that "once you've been given
asylum, it's not like you can be then picked up by a country and sent
into the hands of your persecutor. Whether it's in the car, whether
it's on the streets, wherever you are, it's illegal to do so." There's
no UK case law that backs that up. If there's an international law that
states that, I'm unfamiliar with it -- I am unfamiliar with it and many
countries are also unfamiliar with it because this standard he's
applying has not been the standard. If you are wanted for murder and
you claim you're a political target and Spain agrees to give you asylum,
unless you are in Spain, the authorities have the right and will
attempt to arrest you. This is not a new development.

Michael
Ratner is incorrect when he says it's the law. Asylum isn't a floating
space in the midst of a game of tag-you're-it. You're granted asylum
at an embassy or in that host country. By Michael's logic, Julian can
remain in London, he can travel all over and, if anyone tries to arrest
him, he just says, "Uh-uh, I've got asylum from Ecuador." That's not
how it works.

Michael asserts that, "It's
illegal for them to stop Julian Assange trying to get to Ecuador." In
what world? Does he not know any of the asylum cases during the lead up
to WWII? I cannot believe anyone would make such a claim.

We
deserve better than that from Michael Ratner or from anyone. What was
broadcast today was a bunch of cheery, beat off material. I believe the
left has self-pleasured enough for the last four years. Let's try
reality and honesty instead.

We can discuss
this again tomorrow but for now I am tired of people lying to make their
political cases, I am tired of all the whoring. I realize it's
ingrained in some, certainly a number were more than willing to repeat
as gospel whatever the party line was out of the mouth of Joseph
Stalin. It needs to stop. Kimberly Wilder is a smart and caring
person. She's repeated a false claim because the left media whored.
They refused to tell the truth. That needs to stop right now. On the
left we need to be smarter and more factual. We're not helping anyone
by dumbing ourselves down. (And Bob Somerby tries to make that argument
every day at The Daily Howler. I wonder how many of us even listen?)

The
left needs to grow the hell up, all of us. And that includes losing
the need to paint anyone who thinks as we do (or appears to) as
marvelous, wonderful and 100% pure. There is a growing number of people
(possibly a small number but it's out there, we encounter them when we
speak to college audiences especially) who feel Assange distracts from
political prisoner Bradley Manning (I agree) and that Assange should
turn himself in already because with his talk show and his this and his
that he's become a joke (it's his decision to turn himself in or not, I
have no opinon on that). I would like that to be the end of it this
week on Assange and hope that Monday, when the latest Law and Disorder Radio, rolls around -- which is hosted by Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and, yes, Michael Ratner
-- that Michael will have sharpened his argument regarding to Julian
Assange and we can open the snapshot with his explaining to us why the
amnesty must take place. He can, for example, present the same claims
as the ethical (or "moral" -- but I refrain from the use of that term
whenever possible) choice. That's fine. But don't claim something's
the law when it's not. We can't afford to be any more ill-informed or
mis-informed in this country. And we can't afford to lose someone as
smart as Michael Ratner to the easy-bake punditry that has afflicted so
many on the left.

Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes,
"The current Muslim holy month of Ramadan was bloody for Iraqis as al
Qaeda in Iraq carried out a number of deadly attacks across the country,
targeting mainly Shiite areas." And the violence of the month
continued today as Iraq was slammed with a wave of violence. RT offers a photo essay of some of the damage. At least nine cities have seen major violence. Kareem Raheem, Mustafa Mahmoud, Jamal al-Badrani, Fadhil al-Badrani, Ali Mohammed, Barry Malone and Patrick Markey (Reuters) note
that while no one has claimed credit for today's violence -- it may
be the work of one group or of many groups and individuals -- the
Islamic State of Iraq has been taking credit for recent violence
(following the announcement of their Breaking The Walls campaign) and "It has been reinvigorated by the inflow of fighters and cash into neighboring Syria,
providing a morale boost and some extra arms and cash, security experts
say. Iraqi insurgents are vowing to retake territory lost during a long
war with American troops." And such a move -- retaking
territory -- would explain why some of the al Qaeda in Iraq that is now a
part of the Free Syrian Army is reportedly buring weapons (see yesterday's snapshot) to prepare for the "after" if President Bashar al-Assad is driven out of power. July 22nd,
the Islamic State of Iraq released an audio recording announcing a new
campaign of violence entitled Breaking The Walls which would include
prison breaks and killing "judges and investigators and their guards."
(They also threatened to attack America on US soil.) Regardless of
which individual or individuals are behind today's attacks, it is a
bloody day in Iraq.

al Bawaba reports,
"In the multi-ethnic city of Kirkuk (north), four car bombs exploded
between 08.15 and 09.30, killing one person and injuring 20 others,
according to a police official and Dr. Wali Karim from the main
hospital in the city. Many members of the security forces were among the
wounded, added the two sources." Xinhua reports,
"In addition, gunmen with assault rifles attacked a police checkpoint
at an intersection just west of Baquba, killing one policeman and
wounding another, the source added. Meanwhile, a member of the
government-backed Awakening Council group was gunned down by gunmen near
his house in Aswad village, some 9 km north of Baquba, he said." Near
Baquba, Alsumaria reports,
MP Hussain Kazhim Mahmud declared that his bodyguards were attacked
today by 30 gunmen in three cars outside his Khalis office resulting in
one assailant being killed and two of his bodyguards being injured (he
is part of the Sadr bloc in Parliament). Salam Faraj (AFP) reports,
"In Al-Garma, near the former insurgent bastion of Fallujah west of
Baghdad, four policemen were killed and three others wounded in a
shooting at a checkpoint, according to police Major Enes Mahmud and Dr
Omar Dalli at Fallujah hospital. As emergency responders and civilians
rushed to the scene, a roadside bomb exploded, wounding three others." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports,
"A car bomb exploded outside a real-estate building in northeastern
Baghdad on Thursday morning, killing six people and wounding 32 others,
police said. Also Thursday, a car bomb exploded on a busy road in
al-Taji district on the northern outskirts of Baghdad, wounding nine
people, police said." Alsumaria reports
the Tikrit police disarmed a car bomb at noon today but a Salahuddin
Province home bombing resulted in the death of the wife of Mushtaq Ahmed
al-Jaffar and left him and three of their sons injured. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) counts 29 dead and one-hundred-and-one people injured.

BBC News notes
of today's violence throughout Iraq, "Many of the attacks targeted
security personnel." Police, soldiers, Sahwa. There are 15 more days in
the month but already August has been a violent one. Through
yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 206 violent deaths in Iraq so far this month.

Press
TV: Why do you think there has been a spike in attacks and violence in
the past month. Do you see any relation to the current situation in
Syria as the terrorist groups there are getting support from the US and
its allies?

al-Motallebi: Yes, I think one of the factors, one
of the reasons for the escalation of violence in Iraq could be for
regional reasons from regional interferences.

Unfortunately, we
have very complicated circumstances happening in Syria and a lot of
al-Qaeda is transferring their activities from Iraq into Syria and vice
versa.

Also, we have a complicated political situation with KRG,
the Kurdistan Regional Government. Usually whenever we have differences
with Kurdistan there would be an escalation of violence.

We are
not sure of the relationship between the two events, but we cannot
escape the fact that there are may be regional interference from
inside Iraq or from Syria and definitely Turkey and Saudi Arabia will
always be accused of instigating unrest in Iraq.

State of Law may have also been behind the rumors about the KRG earlier today. Alsumaria reports
KRG President Massoud Barzani has denied that the KRG will be providing
asylum to the residents of Camp Ashraf. What is Camp Ashraf?

Since
Barack Obama has been sworn in as US president, Nouri has ordered not
one but two attacks on Camp Ashraf resulting in multiple deaths. Let's
recap. July 28, 2009
Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer
entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents,"
Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on
28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least
nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six
residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They
were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor
health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011,
Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault
took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way,
"Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within
the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who
tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the
operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more
than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other
protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a
committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on
other occasions when the government has announced investigations into
allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the
authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions
whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes
that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of
Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva
Conventions."

In
recent weeks the situation surrounding the safety of 3,400 members of
an Iranian opposition group based in Iraq has taken a significant turn
in the halls of the White House.

As
the US takes a keener interest in protecting these Iranians from the
clutches of the regime in Tehran, it appears that this US administration
has finally realised that it cannot allow Iraq to fall into the hands
of Tehran.

How the story of Camp Ashraf now plays out will tell us much about where the future of Iraq lies.

[. . .]

[US
Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton and her team in Iraq must succeed
in guaranteeing the safety of the Camp Ashraf residents. This will allow
the UN to carry out the ultimate relocation work. Not only will this
ensure that the US has carried out its humanitarian duty, but further it
will leave Iraq less influenced by Iran and the US seen as a nation
which lives up to its obligation. This is something that the entire
democratic opposition movements of the Arab Spring will look to for hope
and is a test which the US cannot fail.

The
US State Dept may make a decision in October, it may not, as to the
residents. The US federal court system is expecting the State Dept to
have made a decision by then.

Roseanne
Barr: David, you know one thing I want to say is Obama is trying to
take our medical marijuana over there in California and trying to send
in federal troops to get our medical marijuana and I'll tell you this,
Obama, you'll get my joint when you pry it ouf of my cold, dead
fingers. That's when. And I know -- I don't want to get Obama's kill
list. You know, I got to look out for drones on my way home now I know.

David Letterman: Let's say a person signs up for the medical marijuana --

Roseanne Barr: Okay.

David Letterman: -- is there a list of ailments that you have to support or prove you have?

Roseanne
Barr: You know, it's not funny, Dave. It's a real medicine that a lot
of people can't live without. I mean it really helps with mental
illness and stuff which is why I use it. [Applause.] The only bad
thing is you can't use it and own a gun. If you're on the medical
marijuana, they won't let you own a gun. Well all these drunks are
walking around with guns. And now, did you know that in the state of
California that big government is trying to get these porn stars and
force them to wear rubbers. The founding fathers are rolling over in
their graves on that, Dave.

While
I deeply respect Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein, I'm in the process of
organizing a Peace & Freedom Party affiliate here in Florida and
hope to place Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan on the November ballot. We
filed our qualifying paperwork -- i.e., the party's officers, bylaws
and constitution -- with the Division of Elections on Tuesday.

Sam
Sacks: The Green Party is the only political party today running on a
new Economic Bill of Rights guaranteeing a job, a living wage, quality
health care, a good education and housing and other rights to all
Americans. Not only that, the Green Party is the only political party
that's speaking out against the corporate takeover of our democracy and
economy. It's running on a platform to overturn corporate personhood,
guarantee a vote for all eligible Americans and set up a robust public
financing system that breaks up the two party duopoly in America and
brings new ideas into the political debate. Our nation is in crisis
today and it's obvious that doubling down on 30 years of failed economic
policy won't work and neither will trimming around the edges and
looking for minor tweeks. We need revolutionary change in America and
joining me now to talk about how that happens is Dr. Jill Stein, the
Green Party's presidential candidate for president of the United
States. Dr. Stein, welcome.

Jill Stein: Thank you so much, Sam, it's great to be with you.

Sam
Sacks: It's an honor to have you on. You're proposing this Bill of
Economic Rights I just mentioned that [US President Franklin D.]
Roosevelt tried to propose. Had he been successful 70 years ago, would
we have been able to see CEOs taking more and more profits that should
have gone to better wages? Would we have seen Too Big To Fail jump up
on Wall Street and crash our economy? Would we be in the mess that
we're in today.

Jill
Stein: Well we certainly shouldn't be. You know, where we'd be is
hard to say because even those reforms that were passed in that era
following the Great Depression, those reforms to separate the investment
from the commercial banks, the Social Security, Medicare, you know, the
various reforms that have grown out of the New Deal and beyond, they
are -- they havehave been under attack for decades. So it's hard to say
where we'd be, but it's clear that right now we are in a real crisis.
And that crisis give us, you know, it's really a perfect storm for
revisting where we are. And that means not only an Economic Bill of
Rights, but also a full employment program to put people back to work.
We did this in the midst of the Great Depression. And the New Deal
substantially got us out of the Great Depression. It reduced the
unemployment rate to about 25% down to about 10% before the start of
WWII which finished the job. But prior to that it had been enormously
successful. There's no reason why we don't do that today. We could
have a full employment program by directly creating jobs -- for
basically the amount of money that the president spent in the stimulus
package of 2009. Instead of jump starting two to three million jobs
which was actually what was created then, we could actually create 16
million jobs directly, which in turn would create a secondary waves of
about 8 million jobs, get us to 25 million jobs which is what we need.
And the difference is that instead of providing tax breaks to large
corporations which was the bulk of that stimulus package, instead we
can directly provide jobs at the community level, provide national
funding, but put communities in charage of deciding what jobs they need
to become sustainable not only economically, [but] socially and also
environmentally. And in doing that, we not only solve the economic
emergency that we're facing but also the climate emergency because the
Green New Deal jump starts that transformation to the Green Economy
which is absolutely essential if we're to survive not only into the next
century but increasingly we're looking at into the next decade or two
given the rate at which climate change is accelerating and exceeding the
wildest and most dire predictions of the science which is has been
proven really to have been too optimistic. So, in our view, the clock
is ticking. We don't have time to fool around with the unemployment
crisis or the climate crisis that we're facing.